General Discussion

octoberlib

(14,971 posts)

34. He should have just called it what it is. Pay for play.

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 03:11 PM

Apr 2014

"that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns. " Yes, and those constituents are all corporations and millionaires. It's not so much the money itself, it's the source of the money. It should be coming from We the People so politicians will be responsive to our needs.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

52 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A sickening passage from Roberts� opinion: [View all] kpete Apr 2014 OP

any regulation must target quid pro quo "or its appearance" (!) unblock Apr 2014 #1

I think you're onto something here... ewagner Apr 2014 #25

+1 uponit7771 Apr 2014 #28

bribery G_j Apr 2014 #2

I've got a reading of the "appearance of a quid pro quo" Jack Rabbit Apr 2014 #30

exactly, crooked judges G_j Apr 2014 #35

same as it ever was, only more so... alterfurz Apr 2014 #3

how i read it: barbtries Apr 2014 #4

Donating money in exchange for legislation is quid pro quo, whereas grahamhgreen Apr 2014 #9

We have now gone back in time.. to the aristocratic rule Ichingcarpenter Apr 2014 #5

Plutocracy OLDMDDEM Apr 2014 #8

It makes fighting back difficult when they own the entire media. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #37

The internet is our only true lifeline Ichingcarpenter Apr 2014 #41

Remember the debates betwee Bush and Kerry mindwalker_i Apr 2014 #6

This part of the opinion is what seems to me to be so unbelievable PRETZEL Apr 2014 #7

Are they this ignorant to the effect of money? FlyByNight Apr 2014 #10

Corrupt, not ignorant FiveGoodMen Apr 2014 #12

+1 an entire shit load! Enthusiast Apr 2014 #38

+1000. Yep. They know what they are doing. But they are corrupt and don't give a shit. GoneFishin Apr 2014 #46

"only property owners should have the vote" Voice for Peace Apr 2014 #17

Worse yet, money is given to an opposing candidate to punish an incumbent for supporting JDPriestly Apr 2014 #26

he's full of shit warrior1 Apr 2014 #11

Bush the Elder uttered those same 3 words back in the late 80's benld74 Apr 2014 #13

Corporations Do Not Have Rights as thought they were a person NightWatcher Apr 2014 #14

it's about manners, and gentlemen's agreements, winks and nods. Voice for Peace Apr 2014 #15

I may be too pure of mind to understand this... AAO Apr 2014 #16

"only the just prevail in the end" FiveGoodMen Apr 2014 #18

There are limitations on all other forms of speech Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #19

Yes. This decision needs to be challenged under the 5th and 14th Amendments, equal protection JDPriestly Apr 2014 #31

I agree, but challenged how, in what forum? n/t markpkessinger Apr 2014 #33

The courts! JDPriestly Apr 2014 #45

Sure, but that process would merely wind up back in the Supreme Court's lap . . . markpkessinger Apr 2014 #47

+1! Beyond outrageous! Enthusiast Apr 2014 #39

MONEY IS NOT SPEECH! aquart Apr 2014 #32

No, I can understand saying that money is a form of speech Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #36

I believe your understanding is flawed. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #42

In this case, money is buying speech Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #48

What an absurd notion. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #49

I think it is you who do not understand Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #50

I understand you perfectly. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #51

Oh? What is my "agenda"? Fortinbras Armstrong Apr 2014 #52

+1 an entire shit load! Enthusiast Apr 2014 #40

What did he think Christie was doing visting Adelson? JoePhilly Apr 2014 #20

So why is Don Siegelman still in prison? JDPriestly Apr 2014 #21

Because Republican politicians are universally corrupt Jack Rabbit Apr 2014 #22

Yes. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #43

EXACTLY!!! pnwmom Apr 2014 #24

+1 uponit7771 Apr 2014 #29

So it's OK to buy candidates whole, but not to buy their support for just one piece of legislation. tclambert Apr 2014 #23

And what we have now is not quid pro quo? Ed Suspicious Apr 2014 #27

It is precisely quid pro quo. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #44

He should have just called it what it is. Pay for play. octoberlib Apr 2014 #34